The opinion
CATINA BRAXTON- * NO. 2024-CA-0373
ROBERTSON
*
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
*
SEWERAGE & WATER FOURTH CIRCUIT
BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS *
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPEAL FROM
CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ORLEANS
NO. 9483 & 9498
******
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
******
(Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge
Nakisha Ervin-Knott)
Chanelle L. Collins
Darryl Harrison
SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD
625 St. Joseph Street, Room 201
New Orleans, Louisiana
70165
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Jack Bohannon
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES
1340 Poydras Street, Suite 720
New Orleans, Louisiana
70112
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
DECEMBER 6, 2024
TGC
PAB
NEK
This case involves an appeal from a decision issued by the Civil Service
Commission for the City of New Orleans (hereinafter “the Commission”).
Defendant/Appellant, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (hereinafter
“S&WB”), seeks review of the Commission’s decision reinstating
Plaintiff/Appellee, Catina Braxton-Robertson (hereinafter “Mrs. Braxton-
Robertson”). After consideration of the record before this Court and applicable
law, we affirm the Commission’s decision.
Facts and Procedural History
Mrs. Braxton-Robertson is an eighteen-year permanent classified employee
of S&WB. At the time of her dismissal, she was employed as a Water Inspector II
with the Meter Reading and Investigations Department.1
On July 10, 2023, S&WB notified Mrs. Braxton-Robertson of her
emergency suspension by letter. She was placed on emergency suspension based
on the following: (1) allegations of worker’s compensation fraud, (2) willful acts of
negligence, causing damage to a customer’s property and (3) document fraud. The
1 Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s job duties include connecting and disconnecting water services.
1
worker’s compensation fraud allegations stem from two work related injuries that
occurred in 2012 and 2022.2 As a result of her injuries, Mrs. Braxton-Robertson
received worker’s compensation benefits and was required to complete a monthly
“Workers Compensation Form 1020” (hereinafter “1020 Form”) pursuant to La.
R.S. 23:1208.3 The 1020 Form indicates that employees are required to report self-
employment, involvement in business enterprises, unemployment and social
security disability benefits received while receiving worker’s compensation
benefits. S&WB alleged that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson failed to report her
involvement in business enterprises. It also alleged she committed willful
negligence and document fraud related to a June 6, 2023 incident wherein Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson was assigned to activate water service (hereinafter “the June
Incident”).4 Specifically, S&WB asserted that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson failed to
follow its policy in obtaining the homeowner’s signature prior to activating his
water service. S&WB conducted an internal investigation after placing Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson on emergency suspension.5
On July 24, 2023, Mrs. Braxton-Robertson was notified by S&WB of her
termination by letter. Her termination was based on worker’s compensation fraud;
willful acts of negligence, causing damage to a customer’s property; and document
2 In 2012, Mrs. Braxton-Robertson was injured during a work-related car accident which caused
injuries to her hip, leg and back. She sustained another injury in March 2022 to her right wrist.
3 In accordance with La. R.S. 23:1208(A):
It shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any
benefit or payment under the provisions of this Chapter, either for himself or for
any other person, to willfully make a false statement or representation.
4 The homeowner filed a complaint reporting that he did not give his signature and that his home
flooded after Mrs. Braxton-Robertson activated water service.
5 Mrs. Braxton-Robertson first attempted to resign following the June Incident; however, S&WB
did not permit her to resign and placed her on emergency suspension.
2
fraud. The letter indicated Mrs. Braxton-Robertson violated the following: (1)
S&WB’s Progressive Discipline Policy; (2) S&WB’s Professional Conduct Policy;
(3) Civil Service Rule IX, Section 1, Maintaining Standards of Service; and (4)
S&WB’s Vehicle Usage Policy.6
Mrs. Braxton-Robertson appealed her suspension and termination to the
Commission challenging the sufficiency of the evidence which formed the basis of
her termination. She asserted that she did not commit worker’s compensation fraud
or violate S&WB’s policies when activating the homeowner’s water service. The
appeal was heard by a hearing officer who heard extensive testimony, viewed the
evidence and concluded that S&WB failed to submit sufficient evidence to warrant
termination.7 The hearing officer recommended that the Commission grant Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson’s appeal. The Commission reviewed the hearing transcripts,
evidence submitted and the hearing officer’s report. It concluded that S&WB failed
to submit sufficient evidence to support the allegations of worker’s compensation
fraud. The Commission also found that S&WB failed to prove that Mrs. Braxton-
Robertson violated any S&WB policy. Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s appeal was
granted and the Commission reinstated her employment. This appeal followed.
6 The relevant policy in this appeal is S&WB’s Progressive Discipline Policy. This policy warns
its employees that termination will result if fraudulent claims are made in connection to worker’s
compensation benefits.
In Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s termination letter, S&WB maintains she violated the Vehicle Usage
Policy by selling “unauthorized [S&WB] merchandise” out of a S&WB work truck. It also
alleges that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson was guilty of recklessly operating a company vehicle by
participating in Facebook live stream while driving a work truck. However, S&WB did not
introduce evidence of these violations at her hearing and the allegations are not at issue in this
appeal.
7 Testimony was elicited at the hearing from the following: Mrs. Braxton-Robertson, Korye
Delarge-Dickerson, Brenton McCoy, Monique Chatters, Michael LeVasseur, Clifton Neely,
Kimberly Batise; Toyida Rogers, Ronald Williams, Sr. and Janice Porter.
3
Standard of Review
“[T]he standard of review in a case from the Civil Service Commission is
established by the constitutional rule that the Commission’s decision is subject to
review on any question of law or fact.” Dukes v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 2022-
0746, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/10/23), 368 So.3d 159, 163 (citing La. Const. art. X, §
12). “A multifaceted standard of appellate review applies.” Dukes, 2022-0746, p.5,
368 So.3d at 163. The Commission’s factual findings are not disturbed upon
review unless clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Id. (citation omitted). When
“evaluating the Commission’s determination as to whether the disciplinary action
is both based on legal cause and commensurate with the infraction, the appellate
court should not modify the Commission’s decision unless it is arbitrary,
capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted) (citation omitted).
Discussion
On appeal, S&WB asserts two assignments of error. First, it maintains there
was sufficient evidence to establish that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson engaged in
worker’s compensation fraud. Second, it argues that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson
violated S&WB’s policies when activating a homeowner’s water without his
signature.
“An employee with permanent status in the classified city service may only
be terminated, or otherwise subjected to disciplinary action, in writing and for
good cause.” Stephens v. New Orleans Police Dep't, 2019-0641, p. 6 (La.App. 4
Cir. 12/4/19), 286 So.3d 519, 523 (citation omitted). “Legal cause exists whenever
an employee’s conduct impairs the efficiency of the public service in which the
employee is engaged.” Cittadino v. Dep’t of Police, 558 So.2d 1311, 1315
4
(La.App. 4th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). “[T]he appointing authority must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, the occurrence of the complained of activity
and that the conduct did in fact impair the efficient and orderly operation of the
public service.” Dukes, 2022-0746, p. 6, 368 So.3d at 164 (citations omitted).
S&WB terminated Mrs. Braxton-Robertson based on alleged acts of
worker’s compensation fraud, willful acts of negligence and document fraud. The
Commission’s “duty [is] to review whether good or lawful cause exists for taking
[] disciplinary action against an employee.” Stephens, 2019-0641, p. 6, 286 So.3d
at 523 (citation omitted). The Commission concluded that S&WB failed to
establish (1) Mrs. Braxton-Robertson engaged in worker’s compensation fraud and
(2) Mrs. Braxton-Robertson violated S&WB’s policy when activating the
homeowner’s water without his signature. We address each assignment of error in
turn.
Worker’s Compensation Fraud
S&WB maintains that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson failed to report her
involvement in business enterprises as required by La. R.S. 23:1208. It maintains
that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s failure to report this information constitutes
worker’s compensation fraud.
Agent Clifton Neely (hereinafter “Agent Neely”), a senior special agent with
S&WB, was assigned to investigate the allegations of worker’s compensation fraud
against Mrs. Braxton-Robertson. As part of his initial investigation, Agent Neely
reviewed the following: (1) a report from Ms. Jaqueline Spencer (hereinafter “Ms.
Spencer”), a S&WB risk manager; (2) a report from Genesis Information Services
(hereinafter “Genesis”), a private investigative agency hired to investigate Mrs.
5
Braxton-Robertson; and (3) five of Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s 1020 Forms.8 The
Genesis investigation revealed that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson and her husband were
registered agents of two businesses, Ice Cleaning Services and Ice Landscaping
Services. The investigation also located advertisements on Mrs. Braxton-
Robertson’s Facebook page, HomeAdvisor and Nextdoor.com for Ice Cleaning
Services, Ice Landscaping Service and Hank Chief.9 Based on his investigation,
Agent Neely concluded Mrs. Braxton-Robertson engaged in worker’s
compensation fraud by being involved in business enterprises and failing to report
her involvement on the 1020 Forms.
S&WB’s Progressive Discipline Policy prohibits the submission of
fraudulent claims by employees. The 1020 Form states that S&WB employees
receiving worker’s compensation benefits are required to report, on a monthly
basis, self-employment, involvement in business enterprises, unemployment
benefits and social security disability benefits. The 1020 Form specifically states
that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of obtaining or defeating
any benefit or payment under the provisions of this Chapter, either for himself or
for any other person, to willfully make a false statement or representation.” La.
R.S. 23:1208(A).
S&WB submitted Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s 1020 Forms from January 2021
to May 2021 and evidence of social media pages promoting Ice Cleaning Services,
Ice Landscape Services and Hank Chief. It maintained that the Genesis report,
coupled with the 1020 Forms, establishes that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson was
8 Genesis surveilled Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s day-to-day activities on three separate days. The
surveillance did not reveal any abnormal activity and is not the subject of this appeal.
9 Hank Chief is a catering business owned by members of Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s family. She
testified that she only posts advertisements on social media to promote the business and receives
no income.
6
involved in business enterprises and neglected to include that information on the
1020 Forms submitted at the hearing.
The Commission reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was
insufficient evidence to establish that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson committed worker’s
compensation fraud. We find this conclusion supported by the evidence. The
hearing officer and the Commission determined that the 1020 Forms contain
various discrepancies. Specifically, Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s January 2021 form
includes a date of “January 2021” at the top of the form; however, “May 2021” is
at the bottom of the form next to her signature. The 1020 Form is dated February
2021, but contains a date of “June 2021” on the bottom of the form next to Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson’s signature. Four of the five 1020 Forms submitted contain the
exact same discrepancy. The Commission also recognized that Mrs. Braxton-
Robertson has been receiving worker’s compensation benefits from S&WB since
2012 and noted her testimony was that she has completed over 120 forms.
However, S&WB submitted only five 1020 Forms and four of those forms
contained discrepancies. Mrs. Braxton-Robertson acknowledged that she is
involved in family businesses and routinely informs S&WB of that fact through the
1020 Forms. She maintained that she did not complete the 1020 Forms relied upon
by S&WB at the hearing. S&WB tried to explain this discrepancy by pointing out
that the 1020 Forms are often completed after the reporting date located at the top
of the form. The Commission apparently found no merit to this argument, finding
that S&WB’s explanation did not align with Mrs. Braxton-Robertson’s testimony
or the 1020 Forms submitted into evidence.
This Court has held that “deference will be given to the factual conclusions
of the Commission.” Stephens, 2019-0641, p. 8, 286 So.3d at 524 (quoting Pope v.
7
New Orleans Police Dep’t, 2004-1888, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/05), 903 So.2d 1,
4) (citation omitted) (internal quotation omitted). The Commission carefully
weighed the evidence submitted and found that S&WB failed to satisfy its burden
of proof to establish Mrs. Braxton-Robertson committed worker’s compensation
fraud. We find the conclusion of the Commission is not contrary to the evidence
and this Court will not disturb its decision.
June Incident
S&WB also alleges Mrs. Braxton-Robertson committed willful acts of
negligence, resulting in property damage, when activating the water on June 6,
2023. The crux of S&WB’s assertion is that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson did not obtain
the signature of the homeowner prior to activating his water.
Michael LeVasseur (hereinafter “Agent LeVasseur”), a senior special agent
with S&WB, was assigned to investigate the June Incident and allegations of Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson’s willful acts of negligence. Agent LeVasseur’s investigation
included an interview with the complaining homeowner and a review of Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson’s statement and work vehicle’s GPS location on June 6, 2023.
The investigation revealed that the homeowner never met with Mrs. Braxton-
Robertson nor did he sign a document authorizing her to activate his water service.
Rather, Agent LeVasseur determined that Mrs. Braxton-Robertson received
authorization to activate the water from a construction worker at the home. He
concluded that her failure to secure a signature from the homeowner was a
violation of S&WB’s policies.
The Commission disagreed concluding that S&WB failed to show Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson violated S&WB’s policies when activating the homeowner’s
water service without obtaining his signature. We find this conclusion supported
8
by the evidence. At the hearing, Mrs. Braxton-Robertson explained that she often
receives a signature to activate a water service from someone other than a
homeowner. She testified that she is unaware of a policy stating otherwise. This
was corroborated by the testimony of employees from the same department who
similarly explained they would receive a signature from a contractor or
construction worker prior to activating water service. These witnesses were also
unaware of a policy requiring the homeowner’s signature. Therefore, the
Commission determined S&WB failed to submit evidence of any policy which
states that employees are required to obtain a signature from a homeowner. There
is no policy within the record to support S&WB’s assertions. Based on the record
before us, we do not find the Commission’s decision manifestly erroneous. “This
Court will not modify a decision of the Commission absent a finding that the
Commission’s decision is clearly or manifestly erroneous.” Mykulak v. New
Orleans Police Dep’t, 2022-0578, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/16/23), 359 So.3d 1028,
1037 (citation omitted). The Commission carefully weighed the evidence and
found that S&WB failed to satisfy its burden of proof. We agree. Accordingly, this
Court will not disturb the Commission’s findings.
Decree
Based on the foregoing, the Commission’s decision to reinstate Mrs.
Braxton-Robertson and reimburse her for lost wages and other emoluments of
employment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
9